![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 23:12:31 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote: Well, although you may have good reason for what you say, in my experience, both in the military and in industry, there was never any problem in the statement that one possessed a security clearance. In fact, in industry, your company ID badge displayed stars to quickly identify the level of your clearance. Two stars = secret, three stars = TS. NASA stopped doing that a while back. We used colored borders on the badges, so we all had to get new badges without that information. And, your access to specific compartmentalized programs (i.e. "black") was displayed with a letter and number code in an "egg crate" at the bottom of your badge. It was easy to determine if someone had access to a program by looking at your badge and theirs--same numbers and in a cleared location, OK to discuss if they reasonably had "need to know". NASA uses lists of people briefed onto programs (i.e. having the need to know for that program), rather than putting it on the badge. We used to use badge coding, with a little YF-12 planform indicating access to Senior Crown, for example. We stopped doing that when we stopped coding clearance levels. I think we were told to stop. Seriously, there's nothing magic about security clearances. The security issue is not who has one, but what is accessible after the fact. There is little to be gained in status by possession of a clearance and nothing to be added by ascribing some sort of "bad juju" to the system. The status, such as there is, comes with the need to know, with being cleared onto a program. Getting a clearance is a lot easier than getting cleared onto a program. Mary -- Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 20:34:30 -0800, Mary Shafer
wrote: On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 23:12:31 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote: Well, although you may have good reason for what you say, in my experience, both in the military and in industry, there was never any problem in the statement that one possessed a security clearance. In fact, in industry, your company ID badge displayed stars to quickly identify the level of your clearance. Two stars = secret, three stars = TS. NASA stopped doing that a while back. We used colored borders on the badges, so we all had to get new badges without that information. NASA may have stopped doing it where you worked but not where I work - the guidelines aren't followed the same way all across the agency. I's actually bad security form to identify clearance level via color-coded badges, because it makes specific people identifiable to hostile intelligence services. In many cases though the ease of using color-coded badges overcomes the hassle of doing it in some other way. Also, it's the first thing people think of when designing badge systems, i.e. "Hey, why don't we use different colors to designate access levels?". And, your access to specific compartmentalized programs (i.e. "black") was displayed with a letter and number code in an "egg crate" at the bottom of your badge. It was easy to determine if someone had access to a program by looking at your badge and theirs--same numbers and in a cleared location, OK to discuss if they reasonably had "need to know". NASA uses lists of people briefed onto programs (i.e. having the need to know for that program), rather than putting it on the badge. We used to use badge coding, with a little YF-12 planform indicating access to Senior Crown, for example. We stopped doing that when we stopped coding clearance levels. I think we were told to stop. People who are cleared into compartmentalized systems should be known to each other. Everybody else should be escorted, or challenged. There are some places where the badges can only be worn within the compartment and are never seen by anybody on the outside. Seriously, there's nothing magic about security clearances. The security issue is not who has one, but what is accessible after the fact. There is little to be gained in status by possession of a clearance and nothing to be added by ascribing some sort of "bad juju" to the system. Exactly, although possession of an active security clearance right now can significantly add to your job prospects. John Hairell ) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Bush Pilots Fly-In. South Africa. | Bush Air | Home Built | 0 | May 25th 04 06:18 AM |
Joint German-Israeli airforce excersie (Israeli airforce beats German pilots) | Quant | Military Aviation | 8 | September 25th 03 05:41 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
Israeli Air Force to lose Middle East Air Superiority Capability to the Saudis in the near future | Jack White | Military Aviation | 71 | September 21st 03 02:58 PM |